AJAY NATH RAY, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ application is directed against an order of the Designated Authority passed under the Finance (No. II) Act, 1988. The order is dated 10-2-1999 and calls for deposit as per Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme. ( 2 ) MR. Bajoria points out that the Designated Authority has proceeded on what is, according to him, an error apparent on the record. ( 3 ) THE dues from the assessee were on the excise account and included amounts for duty, penalty and redemption. The aggregate amount exceeded Rs. 30,00,000/ -. ( 4 ) AN appeal was taken to the Tribunal, which passed an order for deposit pending appeal; that deposit included payment of Rs. 5,00,000/-, Rs. 2,00,000/- in regard to penalty and also Modvat adjustment to the extent of Rs. 11,00,000/- approximately; although these are payments, yet were there no Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, these would be not more than deposits for keeping the appeal before the Tribunal alive. All these deposits would have to be adjusted at the final hearing of the appeal. ( 5 ) THE Designated Authority appears to have proceeded on the basis that these payments which are deposits pending appeal, are also amounts to be taken into consideration by him for settling the amount to be determined on the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme. ( 6 ) IT is to be noted that the Scheme applies to the substantive amounts of tax disputed, whether the tax be direct or indirect, but apparently has no application to deposits pending appeal, which are neither direct tax nor indirect tax but a payment in regard to a proceeding in the Department. ( 7 ) MR. Roy Chowdhury submits that once the Designated Authority has determined the amount payable such determination is conclusive and Sub-section (3) of Section 90 makes it quite clear. ( 8 ) ACCORDING to him, even if the full amount as per the determination is paid by Mr. Bajoria's client no prejudice will be suffered because even if the writ succeeds, (which according to him can never succeed) the excess payment, if any, can then be had back by Mr. Bajoria's client. ( 9 ) MR. Bajoria also points out that under section 93 of the said Act the amount once paid under the Samadhan Scheme is not refundable under any circumstance. Bajoria's client. ( 9 ) MR. Bajoria also points out that under section 93 of the said Act the amount once paid under the Samadhan Scheme is not refundable under any circumstance. ( 10 ) TODAY is the first day of presentation of the writ but even today a prima facie view has to be taken as large payments are involved. Mr. Bajoria submits that Rs. 16,12,609/- represents half of the disputed indirect taxes and will be paid by his clients to live respondent No. 1 in due time. He submits, however, that in view of section 93 the balance amount of Rs. 10,00,080/-should be kept properly separate so that section 93 does not obstruct its recoverability at the end of the writ, if it should ultimately be decided in his client's favour. ( 11 ) IT appears to me that as the Finance Act is not a constitutional amendment none of the above sections or sub-sections can touch the court's power to pass orders in accordance with principles settled by the High Court and, more so, by the Supreme Court under the Constitution and Article 226 of it. In any event, Mr. Bajoria's submission that the disputed amount of Rs. 10 lakh and odd should be kept separate, has prima facie substance. It appears to me prima facie that the Designated Authority made an error apparent in confounding the substance of the tax with the deposit order of the Tribunal pending hearing of the appeal. ( 12 ) THERE will thus be Rule as prayed for. Returnable 12 weeks hence. In case Mr. Bajoria's clients pay Rs. 16,12,609/- to the respondent No. 1 within 10-3-1999, and also pay the learned Registrar, Original side, a sum of Rs. 10,00,080/- within the said same date, status quo as of date shall be maintained and no further demands will be made upon or steps taken under the impugned order of the Designated Authority dated 10-2-1999. The respondent No. 1, as a direction of this Court shall accept and appropriate the said sum of Rs. 16,12,609/- notwithstanding the provisions of law or departmental direction contained in any Act or Circular. ( 13 ) IN the event of the aforesaid payments, the appeal before the Tribunal in regard to the determination of the amount shall also remain stayed until disposal of the writ. 16,12,609/- notwithstanding the provisions of law or departmental direction contained in any Act or Circular. ( 13 ) IN the event of the aforesaid payments, the appeal before the Tribunal in regard to the determination of the amount shall also remain stayed until disposal of the writ. In case of default of deposits, there will be no interim order. The learned Registrar, original side, shall deposit the above amount (after deduction of the usual Registrar's commission, if any) with the State Bank of India, Calcutta Main Branch in a short term fixed deposit and shall keep the said amount renewed both as to the principal and interest in successive short term fixed deposits until disposal of the writ. ( 14 ) PARTIES and the learned Registrar, Original Side, will act on the copy of this Dictated Order on the undertaking to have the order properly completed and also the Rule properly drawn up and issued. ( 15 ) LIBERTY to both the parties to apply pending disposal of the writ as preserved. ( 16 ) LEARNED Registrar, Original Side will accept deposit from Mr. Bajoria's clients to the extent indicated above on a signed copy of the minutes of today in regard to this part of the order only.